Mayor Bob Foster’s announcement over the weekend that he will veto action by the city council to put the big-box grocery ban on the ballot provides a sigh of relief for some of those on the city council. Why? Now they can vote in favor of the original ordinance, to ban big-box retailers such as Wal*Mart from selling groceries in their stores located in Long Beach and not have to worry about the political fallout from spending half a million bucks on an election to overturn the ordinance.
Those on the Long Beach City Council seeking higher office, or coming up for re-election in the next cycle, who receive contributions from the grocery workers’ and other unions can now vote in favor of keeping the ordinance to keep their union based campaign contributors happy and know that their vote will not matter due to Mayor Foster’s veto. Thus Lowenthal (take your pick or both), O’Donnell, Schipske and Uranga can all vote in the manner that will ensure future support from the grocery unions and not have to worry about voter fallout for supporting the ordinance because it will never come to pass thanks to the veto.
By the time their primary elections for statewide office or local council district elections come up their votes to spend $500,000 for one issue to protect one segment of one industry will be forgotten by the voters but not by those they protect and benefit from with campaign support. I am sure they are all saying, “Thanks Bob!”
Despite one 5th District Councilmember declaring on her blog and in comments to other Posts on lbpost.com that she, “never received one penny” from the grocery unions—voters in the city know that the grocery and other statewide unions have spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in local elections with what are known as “independent expenditures”, contributions that are not actual cash to the campaigns of the candidates but help them get elected. The hundreds of mailers you get leading up to each election in favor of some candidates or hit pieces on others? Most of those are paid for by third parties using independent expenditures.
Political Action Committees and others can use independent expenditures to support candidates or issues without their approval, but often there is approval and direction from the campaign as to what is needed. As to Councilwoman Schipske’s statements that she never took a penny from the grocery workers union—did they support her with mailers? Yard signs? Door knockers and telephone banks?
Are there other groups or unions she says she never received a penny from? Is she splitting hairs between taking actual cash donations into her campaign treasury versus receiving thousands of dollars of support that can stay off her campaign books? We can verify from whom candidates receive actual cash contributions, or at least those they report, but what is much more difficult without researching into the PACs and other organizations, is what non-monetary support candidates and elected officials receive in the manner of very costly campaign materials, mailings, calls, etc.
One problem with campaign contribution limits as now in place is voters do not get to see the tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars dumped into campaigns as independent expenditures. Every candidate benefits from them, but none have to be disclosed by the candidates and all can say, “they never gave me one penny.”
Maybe not a penny, but several thousand mailers and postage, perhaps? Rest easy folks, those contributions are protected and you can still vote to keep them.
So Mayor Foster appears to be able to split the baby on this issue. The city is not going to waste much needed money on an election to overturn an ordinance that is ill-conceived, and at the same time local politicians in need of campaign support for those in favor of the ordinance will still be able to vote for the ordinance and cash in on the vote in their next elections. Bravo Mayor!
Your thoughts welcome, click here to email me or on “Leave A Comment” below for public response.